DOI NUMBER: 10.

19255/JMPM02503 PAGE 31

PROJECT
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to analyze the different Project
Management Maturity Models (PMMM) and give suggestions on how to

MANAGEMENT
select or develop a model to assess the Project Management Maturity of an
organization. While it seems consolidated to classify PMMM into 5 levels, it
would be useful to evaluate separately as “determinants of maturity”: a. the

MATURITY MODELS
individuals (project managers and team members), b. the projects and how
they are managed (with extension to portfolio and programs too), and c. the
organization as a whole and its capacity to deploy and apply Project
Management. This paper is the most recent, complete review on PMMM.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND NEW

DEVELOPMENTS 1. Introduction
The success of any kind of association, whether it is a small
private company or public management company, depends
on how successful their projects are.
Elisa Fabbro; Stefano Tonchia Regrettably, the data of a new questionnaire 2019 Pulse of
University of Udine, Italy the Profession® show that enterprises have wasted 12% of
the money invested in last’s year projects caused by an
unprofessional service. These data have been almost
steady in the last 5 years. Even though many efforts have
Keywords: Maturity Models; PMMM; Project Management; Organizational been made, implementation of work has not been improved
Project Management Maturity; Project Management Maturity Models; PM (Project Management Institute, 2019).
Managing the projects competently is not an instinctive
Capability; Project Portfolio
talent or a skill that a company can acquire by just carrying
out a few projects with whatever results. It is based on the
level of its organizational maturity (Tonchia, 2018).
Over this century, we have been well aware that the
competence of handling projects is a concrete clue of
organizational project management maturity (Andersen and
Jessen, 2003).
Being aware of a company’s proficiency in organizational
project management and their individual strengths and
weaknesses from different points of view allows the
company to create needed processes for heightened project
management efficiency. (Spalek, 2015).
The essential strategy to develop a management project
competency is to understand and determine company’s
level of organizational maturity (Project Management
Institute, 2013).
A lot has been studied on this subject to improve systems
and techniques to boost the effectiveness of organizational
projects (Nenni et al., 2014).
The Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) is defined
as “a formal tool used to assess, measure and compare an
organization’s own practices against best practices or those
employed by competitors, with the intention to map out a
structured path to improvement” (Grant and Pennypacker,
2006).
The PMMM defines a collection of project manager’ best
practices and the best ways to improve this field. (Pasian,
2011).
Nowadays, it is quite an interesting and often common
subject to discuss with very positive reactions of experts’
because the awareness of maturity can provide lots of
advantages too (Görög, 2016).
On the one hand, understanding the level of maturity helps
to come up with methods and right way to develop maturity
expertise. On the other, it helps to measure betterment
internally as well as in compared to other enterprises.
(Pennypacker and Grant, 2003). Besides, the recognized
worldwide and verifiable maturity model helps to have better
business. The last but not least, it helps secure better
partnerships and contracts.
However, the PMMM has had also some provocative
objections in literature, many have shown disbelief at the
narrow view towards the procedures and mechanistic way of
the model, missing a wider perspective on the

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM #25 ISSUE VOL. 08 NUM. 03 JANUARY/APRIL 2021

PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS... PAGE 33

organizational model determinants and their contextual “Capability Maturity Model Integration”.
factors which also form management maturity. Besides, “Project Management Maturity Model”.
models are excessively elaborate, need a lot of additional “PM Maturity Models”.
information without rigorous protocols to conclude the “PM and Maturity Models”.
evaluation of maturity (Brookes and Clark, 2009). “Organizational Project Management Maturity Model”.
Since the 1990s the world has seen a broad range of “Portfolio, Programme and Project Management
maturity models architected with a concrete area of Maturity Model”.
organizational tasks ranging from operational and strategic
procedure to staff’s involvement and management Overall, the search was restricted to the last 11 years (2009
operations. to 2019) and selected, at May 29 2019, a total of 199
Even though varieties of the models are numerous, what Academic Articles, Reviews and Book Chapters on Scopus,
maturity models have in common are the following three and a total of 97 Academic Articles, Reviews and Book
points: Chapters on Web of Science, as reported in detail on Table
1. Appraisal: the results of this procedure are an 1
assessment of the organizational project management
capabilities and of the advantages and disadvantages of
the project management model (Backlund et al., 2014).
2. Body of knowledge and evolution: capabilities and
competencies related to various stages of maturity
levels, as well as performance-based indicators.
3. Improvement: related to the appraisal results and the
capabilities list. The improvement function of the model
provides the most important actions and shows the way
to betterment.
So that maturity models find the way to establish long-
lasting organizational plans.
Table 1. Selected Academic Articles, Reviews and Book
The body of the knowledge of the models is very alike. Chapter and Proceeding papers on Web of Science and
Every maturity stage has a list of the best practices adopted Scopus divided by keywords.
for which prerequisite capabilities are also required. By
achieving these capabilities leads to betterment which can We then decided to choose articles with significant and
be proven through the results expressed in terms of key relevant contributions, based on the journal's ranking,
performance indicators (KPI). (Kwak et al., 2015). article's citation index and range of its application. Table 2
The aim of this paper is to analyze the different existing provides a summary of the selected publications.
PMMM derived from an extensive literature review, to
compare them, to give some indications and suggestions in
order to select and/or construct a model to assess the
project management maturity of an organization, and to
discuss future directions and developments of this kind of
assessment.

2. Literature Review: Method and Data

Collection
To answer the research questions, we firstly conducted a
systematic literature review of the academic research on Table 2. Selected publications on Scopus and
PMMM. Web of Science. (continue...)
In order to progress with the literature review, a keyword
search was done on the two largest electronic databases of
peer-reviewed literature: Scopus and Web of Science. We
decided to include in the research: Articles, Reviews and
Book Chapters (excluding Conference Proceedings,
believing that the best articles would have become journal
papers). The keyword searched on the database includes
the following terms:

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JANUARY/APRIL 2021

PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS... PAGE 35

3. Focus on the main Project Management

Table 3. Comparison of Project Manager Maturity Models.
Maturity Models (PMMM)

Following the extensive literature review we realized that

many models are different from each other in terms of
structure, types, characteristics, features, applicability and
usage (Table 3). Some of them are named with identical or
similar acronyms (e.g. P2MM and PM2; KPMMM, PMMM,
P2M3 and MMM).

After analyzing in-depth, the relative publications, we ranked

them into three groups:
Maturity Models of the leading PM Organizations –
these models are: OPM3 (from the PMI), IPMA Delta
(from IPMA), P3M3 - P2MM (from Axelos/PRINCE2).
Most cited and validated historical Maturity Models –
these models are: CMMI, Berkley/PM2, Kerzner’s
KPMMM, PMMM (from Project Management Solution),
Prado’s P2M3.
Most recent Maturity Models – such as NPM3, MMM,
SPM3.

3.1. Maturity Models of the leading PM Organizations

3.1.1. Organizational Project Management Maturity Model
(OPM3)

The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model

(OPM3) is a model developed by the Project Management
Institute (PMI) from 1998 to 2013; now this is its 3rd printing.
(PMI, 2013). The main goal of OPM3 is to give an approach
to any kind of organization to assess their maturity against a
global organizational project management best practice.
The OPM3 supports organizations to accomplish successful
achievement by supporting them to achieve successful
projects, programs, and portfolios. (Silva et al., 2014).
The most important advantages of this model are:
Reducing the differences between strategies adopted
and individual projects by implementing the project
Table 2. Selected publications on Scopus and management principles and practices of the strategic
Web of Science. organization.
In-depth understanding regarding the organizational
project management proven methods and best
practices.
Assessing precisely which organizational project
management’s best practices and capabilities to adopt
and which to avoid.
Assisting organizations to understand exactly which
organizational project management best practice and
capabilities to embrace or leave out.
Helping organizations to seek improvements for some
critical areas of the portfolio, program, or project
management by prioritizing and planning (PMI, 2013).

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JANUARY/APRIL 2021

PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS...
OPM3 takes into account five levels of Maturity:
Level 1: an Initial Process.
Level 2: a Structured Process with Standards.
Level 3: an Organizational Standard and an
Institutionalized Process.
Level 4: a Fully-Managed Process.
Level 5: an Optimized Process.
The growth of organizational maturity is achieved
throughout:
Knowledge on best practice, capabilities, and approach
of putting the model into practice.
Assessment of the best practice.
Development of best practices thought capabilities
aggregation.
The model determines planned outcomes, gives
recommendations and suggests KPI to the organizations in
order to improve the project management efficiency and for
reduce the resources (Yerenskaya, 2017).
Nenni et al. (2014) in their research stated, in agreement
with the theory of Khoshgoftar and Osman (2009), that
OPM3 is the better maturity model to improve the
organizational work, as their approach is steady which is an
advantageous aspect.
3.1.2. IPMA Delta Model
The International Project Management Association (IPMA)
developed in 2016 a methodology called “IPMA Delta”
(Version 1.1) in order to certify the ability of an organization
to use project management techniques.
The IPMA Delta Model comprises three “Modules”:
Module I (Individuals): evaluating individual
competences: project, program and portfolio managers,
project staff, senior executives, administration, and
support functions. The assessment focuses on both
individuals’ experience and knowledge in their
respective domains.
Module P (Projects): evaluation of selected projects.
The evaluation aims at the results and achievement of
completed projects and the adoption of the agreed
methods and tools of project management in the
evaluated projects.
Module O (Organisation): evaluation of
organizational competence in managing projects,
primarily seen from the organization´s
management’s point of view, giving assistance to the
management as well as appointing the administration
members to approve smooth and successful projects.
This testing is done chiefly through interviews with the
organization’s top management and the coordinators
responsible for the project management system.
IPMA Delta presents 5 competence called “Classes” that
are:
Initial: there are no existing formal Project Management
(PM) standards structures and processes in the
organization.
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM
PAGE 37
• Defined: there are partially adopted PM standards,
structures and processes in the organization.
Standardized: there are well-defined PM standards,
structures and processes endorsed in the organization.
Managed: there are fully achieved PM standards,
structures and processes which are fully implemented
and constantly checked in an enterprise.
Optimized: there are completely developed PM
standards, structures and processes which are wholly
embraced by in the organization, which are regularly
checked, improved and optimized by the managers of
the organization.
This assessment identifies which class is part of the
organization as a whole and what kind of modules are (I, P,
O).
The results of the assessment show in detail the room for
improvement, giving also recommendations for the future
areas that need to be refined.
The principle advantages of the assessment are:
comprehensive and honest determination of the actual
maturity in the project and program management; basis
for the strategic orientation of the organization in project
and program management under the guidance of top
management; starting point for planning and developing
the organization; better understanding and
communication among the stakeholders - including top
management - regarding the role of project
management in improving performances.
3.1.3. Portfolio, Program & Project Management Maturity Model
(P3M3) and PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM)
The Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity
Model (P3M3) was developed in 2006 by the UK’s Office of
Government Commerce (OCG), that created and promoted
also the advancement of the PRINCE2 methodology
(“Projects IN Controlled Environments” – 1989).
The P3M3 is organized with five levels of maturity:
Level 1: Awareness of process.
Level 2: Repeatable process.
Level 3: Defined process.
Level 4: Managed process.
Level 5: Optimised process.
the
P3M3 comprises also three maturity sub-models also
independently used:
top
Portfolio Management (PfM3).
Program Management (PgM3).
Project Management (PjM3).
Each sub-model comprises seven PM process perspectives:
organizational governance, management control, benefits
management, risk management, stakeholder management,
finance management, resource management.
P3M3 evaluates the process of PM, the competencies of the
professions, the tools used, and the management
information provided to deliver improvements.
JANUARY/APRIL 2021
PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS...
According to Axelos, a joint venture company born in UK to
manage the global best practice portfolio, the main
advantages from adopting P3M3 model are: “cost savings,
improved benefits delivery, increase return on investment,
providing plans for continuous improvement”.
The PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM) is a standard
originated from P3M3 that can be adopted by the
organizations that had previously select PRINCE2, instead
of using Project Management Maturity Model (PjMM) which
is one of the sub-models of P3M3.
The PRINCE2 Maturity Model is quite close for structure to
P3M3 and It has the same seven perspectives of the
process, covering key characteristics of project
management and specific features for each stage of
maturity within each perspectives of the process (OCG,
2019).
Lianying et al. presented in 2012 a new project
management maturity model named P2CMM, derived from
P2MM, where the “c” meaning “Capability”; it’s based on a
quantitative evaluation index system, a web-survey tool, and
a cobweb graph as a tool to share the final improvements.
3.2. Historical, most cited, PM Maturity Models
3.2.1. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), was
developed in 1991 by the CMMI, which represents a group
from industries, government (i.e. US Department of
Defence) and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). As
defined, it is “a capability improvement model that can be
adapted to solve any performance issue at any level of the
organization in any industry”. The current version of CMMI,
the 2.0, is introduced in March 2018 and it is user-friendly
and well connected to Agile with SCRUM safety and
security.
It aims at supporting the engineering companies to identify
and to achieve specific and measurable objectives,
improving their performance for new specialized processes
and decreasing at the same time the costs for the
organization (Pane and Sarno, 2015).
CMMI model proposed five maturity levels:
Level 1: initial.
Level 2: managed.
Level 3: defined.
Level 4: quantitatively managed.
Level 5: optimizing (CMMI Institute, 2019).
In 2019, Ayyagari and Atoum proposed a new software
process improvement model which is a simplification of the
CCMI model; it can be used by small organizations with low
budgets and resources (Ayyagari and Atoum, 2019).
3.2.2. Berkeley PM Maturity Model (PM2)
The model, created by Kwak and Ibbs in 2000, helps the
enterprises to reach an high level of performance. This
concept proposes practical tools and guidelines for
measuring different PM processes by assessing PM
knowledge areas and PM processes.
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM
The Berkeley PM2 is based on five steps:
Level 1: basic PM.
Level 2: planned.
Level 3: managed at project level
Level 4: managed at corporate level.
Level 5: continuous learning.
The model has been continuously polished up to set and
evaluate a more efficient PM maturity level, to observe
progress in the PM knowledge (Derenskaya, 2017). The
primary benefit of the Berkeley PM2 Model is that it can be
commonly used over the organizations, while other models
are more focused on specific targets like software or new
product development (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000).
3.2.3 Kerzner’s Project Management Maturity Model (KPMMM)
The model was conceived by Kerzner in 2002 to advance
organizational skills and culture in order to embrace PM
practices in the organizational processes and procedures
(Kerzner, 2005). KPMMM analyses the efficiency of project
management organization, drawing attention to the
importance of strategic project management to improve
know-how in the marketplace.
The model provides five levels of maturity:
Level 1: common language.
Level 2: common processes.
Level 3: singular methodology.
Level 4: benchmarking.
Level 5: continuous improvement.
KPMMM presents a list of specific criteria to evaluate the
quality of PM and a guide to discuss practices, based upon
the status of PM functionality, to improve organizational
skills from project management’s point of view (Sokhanvar,
2014).
3.2.4. PM Solutions Project Management Maturity Model
(PMMM)
The Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) is
developed in 2002 by PM Solutions to:
assist organizations in developing and measuring their
project management skills systematically and efficiently
based on five levels of maturity (those of PMI’s OPM3);
help organizations to develop maturity throughout the
ten knowledge areas framed in the PMI’s “Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge” (Crawford,
2015).
Once the initial level of maturity and the areas for
betterment have been identified, PMMM supplies a guide
designating necessary measures to reach maturity in PM
(PM Solution, 2019).
The goal of the PMMM methodology is to allow any
enterprise to develop their PM capabilities following a
systematic approach (Souza and Gomes, 2015).
It offers a methodological approach to reach high standards
and gives an assessment framework which enables
enterprises to improve the PM maturity, resulting in better
investments.
3.2.5. Prado’s Project Management Maturity Model (PMM)
The PMM model (PMMM or sometimes P2M3 or MMGP)
was created by Darci Prado in 2008 to perform the
benchmarking of the maturity level of any kind of
organization's department or sector that adopts it.
The model has five different levels:
Level 1: initial.
Level 2: known.
Level 3: standardized.
Level 4: managed.
Level 5: optimized.
It also adopts a questionnaire survey compose of fifty-five
questions: fifteen of which, focused on the general
characterization of the organization, and forty, targeted on
seven specific areas:
1. Competence in Project and Program Management.
2. Competence in Technical and Contextual Aspects.
3. Behavioral Competence.
4. Methodology Usage.
5. Computerization.
6. Usage of the Convenient Organizational Structure.
7. Strategic Alignment (Prado, 2010).
3.3. Most recent Maturity Models
3.3.1 National Project Management Maturity Model (NPM3)
The NPM3 was developed by Seelhofer and Graf in 2018
with the purpose of widening the field of organizational
project management maturity to the national contexts. It
includes four levels:
Level 1: nascent – PM best practices are not adopted by
many organizations, so the initial level is disorganized
and unsystematic, with little support given by the
government and project management associations.
Level 2: developing – A small number of organizations
use PM best practices with irregular support from the
government or professional associations.
Level 3: adolescent – A great number of organizations
use PM best practices routinely but unsystematically;
professional associations assist systematically and the
government only sporadically.
Level 4: mature – A large majority of organizations use
PM routinely and consistently with systematic support by
the government and professional associations.
Additionally, Seelhofer and Graf proposed four key maturity
drivers: National PM culture, National PM process
saturation, National PM experience sharing, and national
PM application support that should be fostered by
governments and project management associations.
The NPM3 model involves also many different professionals
(i.e. government entities, professional associations,
universities) who can work together to foster, support and
implement the Countries’ PM best practices, improving also
the project's sustainability.
PAGE 39
3.3.2. Management Maturity Model (MMM)
MMM was developed by Langston and Ghanbaripour (2016)
with the aim to assess the PM organizations, using tailored,
systematic, strategic and practical methodology, without
following the rigid increments of maturity.
It takes six KPI for a project to achieve success (value,
efficiency, speed, innovation, complication and impact) plus
an overall KPI which takes into consideration the combined
effect of the four success factors (scope, cost, time and
risk).
The model is focused on a strategy of continuous
improvement and it follows the four steps of the PDCA cycle
to put into practice this approach:
Plan: establish targets.
Do: measure outcomes.
Check: assess performance.
Act: enhance protocols.
It aims to reach specific goals and capabilities for project,
program and portfolio domains. Moreover, it offers a
revolutionary improvement on how a project is applied,
based on organizational performance assessment
compared to existing overcomplicated strategies on the
market.
3.3.3. Sustainable Project Management Maturity Model (SPM3)
SPM3 was developed by Silvius and Schipper (2015). It is a
practical tool used for evaluating and developing
organizational skills and integrating them into projects and
project management.
The model identifies the project as a single unit for the
analysis and subdivides it into two subdomains:
Project process: It comprises the resources used in
relation to the process and how the process is carried
out and managed.
Project product: It considers the deliverables of the
project and their impact on all the stakeholders.
SPM3 is based on a scale of four maturity levels:
Level 1: compliant.
Level 2: reactive.
Level 3: proactive.
Level 4: purpose.
For each level, it adopts specific indicators of economic,
environmental, and social sustainability.
By incrementing the level of maturity of the SPM3's model,
the vision of the organization, as a whole, goes from
reactive to proactive influencing positively the sustainability
of its environment.
4. Comparison of Project Management
Maturity Models
The Project Management Maturity Models (PMMM) found in
the literature are very different in terms of complexity, scope
of analysis, characteristics and factors considered.
JANUARY/APRIL 2021
PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS...
Table 3 shows the main PMMMs, classified according to
Par. 3 (PMMM of the leading PM Organizations, Historical
and most cited PMMM, and Most recent PMMM), with key
variables in order to compare them from a synthetic point of
view:
Name/acronym of the model.
Organization or Author who proposed the model (and
the year).
Core Elements (in Table 3 we have considered the main
elements characterizing the model – some models
report various types of “elements”, also called areas,
perspectives, principles, components, factors, etc.).
Maturity levels.
Consideration also of Program Management.
Consideration also of Portfolio Management.
Complexity (high number of parts, interacting with each
other and with the external environment in multiple
ways, both in breadth and in-depth).
The only feature on which almost all the models seem to
converge is the determination of 5 levels or stages of
maturity, even if they are not perfectly equal neither in the
contents nor in the denominations; we can try to summarize
these levels or stages as follows:
Level 1: initial or basic (awareness).
Level 2: defined or structured (managed, repeatable).
Level 3: standardized or institutionalized (use of the
methodology).
Level 4: fully managed at the corporate level.
Level 5: optimized (with learning & improvement).
As for what we have called "Core Elements", they are the
main object of analysis and assessment in order to identify
at which level the organization arises. Different models,
taking the areas of knowledge and the PM processes
considered by the PM professional certifications, assign
scores to them, using questionnaires and scales.
Both the number of items investigated, and the method of
submission are very varied:
Self-assessment.
Guided interviews.
Real audits i.e., external evaluations.
In addition, the type or the mix of questions presents strong
differences, including questions:
With an objective answer (e.g., the number of Project
Managers with a recognized professional certification).
With an objective answer but with an adequacy
consideration need (e.g., the existence of PM
procedures or the use of PM best practices).
With a purely subjective answer.
The PMMM of the leading PM Organizations, with their
medium-high complexity, allow to consider the maturity
deriving from three different sources or drivers:
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM
PAGE 41
Individuals (even if the knowledge possessed by the he “paradox” of analyzing in a simple way an organizational Likewise, if maturity levels exist, the path of the
project managers and those owned by other members system that in most cases has never been formally organizations to level-up could also be relative, that is
of the project teams should be distinguished). investigated in relation to the PM, but to do so, auditors with contextual or contingent – and not predetermined – by
Projects (that is the management of individual projects special skills in the PM are needed. factors of “path dependency” (the history of the company),
following the PM methodology and best practices). While differentiating between 5 levels of maturity seems the by acquisition from outside of project managers who were
The organization (the widespread culture of PM, the most appropriate thing (less than 5 levels would not skim already operating in mature organizations, or due to the
existence of state-of-the-art PM procedures, the creation the different situations, more than 5 levels would make the existence of clients who “pull” the best practices of PM, also
and use of a "repository" of PM experiences, the role of improvement paths less clear), it would seem useful to by collaborations with the Universities, etc.
the PMO - Project Management Officer, etc.). evaluate separately – as “determinants of maturity” – the These last situational aspects, while on the one hand, allow
individuals (distinguishing between project managers and us to consider a company in its specificity and needs, on the
In addition, this would seem to be a useful and fundamental other project team members and company managers), the other hand, however, they could make both the assessment
pre-condition of analysis, even if it could lead to different projects managed (with extension also to portfolio and of maturity and the definition of growth paths in the PM more
levels of maturity for the three different drivers, and programs), the organization as a whole and its capacity to problematic and not univocal.
consequently create difficulties to arrive at a synthesis or deploy and apply PM. As a first assessment step, without Research on Project Management Maturity Models is a field
belonging to a single level or stage for that company. using particularly complex models, grids (“frames”) could be in development, which probably will lead to a better
used, entrusted to PM evaluation experts, such as the one clarification of some models, perhaps even a synthesis and
5. Implications and Future Directions exemplified synthetically in Table 4. furthermore indications for testing the models in several and
different types of organizations. This paper aims to be a
The interest in Project Management Maturity Models is
Finally, it must be considered that having high levels of turning point: on the one hand, it has been considered and
growing and stimulated by the increasingly widespread
maturity is not an absolute objective but contingent in compared to the main models developed over time; on the
awareness of the link between the competitiveness of
relation to at least three factors: other hand, it allows further research to synthesize and
companies and their ability to manage projects. Beyond
The multiplicity of the stakeholders and their satisfaction parameterize one or more models to deepen the testability
approaches and contents sometimes quite different, the
(the concept of stakeholders, introduced with the of measuring maturity in Project Management.
benefits are valuable:
PMBOK 2013 edition and then expanded with the 2017
They allow an assessment of the organization
edition, is increasingly central to the PM).
concerning project management capability and
The complexity of the project scope.
consequently they are a tool to support business
Comparison (benchmarking) with the best competitors.
competitiveness.
Once the degree of maturity has been assessed, a
company finds indicated in the models some
improvement paths, both as objectives and actions to be
taken.
They can also be a business card or a promotional
lever, especially in certain sectors and businesses.
They can allow to win tenders as a general contractor or
to obtain subcontracts as suppliers.
The PMM models aim to analyze and evaluate the
organizational competencies in the PM, and therefore
realize an assessment in the more general framework of the
organizational competencies described by the Resource-
Based View and Competence-Based Competition (De Toni
and Tonchia, 2003): “The competencies explain how two
firms, though with similar objectives and the same
resources, can achieve different performances”.
Having found that some models are quite complex and that
most organizations have never performed an assessment -
nor therefore have a ranking - in their PM maturity, perhaps
it would be the case that the first model that is adopted was
relatively simple, easy to apply and clear in the methods of Table 4. Maturity Levels based on: Individual PM Knowledge (A.),
analysis and results. Projects’ best practices (B.), Organization compliance to PM (C.).
At the same time, given that most of the items investigated
are subjective or at least require a subjective interpretation,
a self-assessment is hardly possible and indeed it is
required that the evaluators (better external auditors)
possess high knowledge and experience of PM. So there is
JANUARY/APRIL 2021
PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS... PAGE 43

References De Toni A. and Tonchia S. (2003), “Strategic Planning and Kwak, Y.H. and Ibbs, C.W. (2000), “The Berkley Project Pennypacker, J. S. and Grant, K. P. (2003). “Project
Firm’s Competencies: Traditional Approaches and New Management Process Maturity Model: Measuring the Value of Management Maturity: An Industry Benchmark”, Project
Albrecht, J. C. and Spang, K. (2016), “Disassembling and
Perspectives”, International Journal of Operations & Production Project Management”, in Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 4–11.
Reassembling Project Management Maturity”, Project
Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 947- 976, 2003. Engineering Management Society, 13-15 Aug, Albuquerque, PM solution (2019), “What is the Project Management Maturity
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 18–35.
Dhankhar, P. and Mishra, A.K. (2014), “A systematic review of NM, USA. Model (PMMM)? Available at
Albrecht, J. C. and Spang, K. (2014), "Linking the benefits of
software process improvement by CMMI”, International Journal Kwak Y. H., Sadatsafavi H., Walewski J. and Williams, N. L. https://www.pmsolutions.com/resources/view/what-is-the-
project management maturity to project complexity: Insights
of Software Engineering and its Application, Vol.8 No.2, pp.21- (2015), “Evolution of project-based organization: A case study”. project-management-maturity- model/(Accessed: 19 September
from a multiple case study", International Journal of Managing
26. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 2020).
Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 285-301.
Fahrenkrog, S., Abrams, F., Haeck, W. and Whelbourn, D. 1652-1664. Project Management Institute (2019), “Pulse of the
Al-Rousan, T. and Al-Shargabi, B. (2017), “A new maturity
(2003), “Project Management Institute’s Organisational Project Langston, C. and Ghanbaripour, A. N. (2016), “A Profession”, available at https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-
model for the implementation of software process improvement
Management Maturity Model (OPM3)”, PMI North American Management Maturity Model (MMM) for project-based leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2019 (accessed 19
in web-based projects”, Journal of Digital Information
Congress, Baltimore, MD, June. organisational performance assessment”, Construction September 2020).
Management, Vol. 15 No.2, pp. 66-75.
Falessi, D., Shaw, M. and Mullen, K. (2014), “Achieving and Economics and Building, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 68- 85. Project Management Institute (2013), Organizational Project
Anderson, E. S. and Jessen, S. A. (2003), “Project maturity in
maintaining CMMI maturity level 5 in a small organization”, Lee, J.-C. and Chen, C.-Y. (2019), “Exploring the determinants Management Maturity Model (OPM3®), 3rd Ed., Inc. Newtown
organizations”, International Journal of Project Management
IEEE Software, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 80-86. of software process improvement success: A dynamic capability Square, Pennsylvania.
Vol. 21 No.6, pp. 457-461.
Farid, A., Abdelghany A. and Helmy, Y. (2016), view”, Information Development, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 6-20. Prado, D. S. (2010), Maturidade em Gerenciamento de
Ayyagari, R. M. and Atoum, I. (2019), “CMMI-DEV
"Implementing Project Management Category Process Areas of Lianying, Z., Jing, H. and Xinxing, Z. (2012), “The Project Projetos, 2nd Ed. Nova Lima, MG: INDG Tecs, 2010.
Implementation Simplified”, International Journal of Advanced
CMMI Version 1.3 Using Scrum Practices, and Assets", Management Maturity Model and Application Based on Rohit A. M. and Atoum, I. (2019), “CMMI-DEV Implementation
Computer Science and Applications, Vol.10 No. 4, pp. 445-459.
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and PRINCE2”, in Procedia Engineering, Vol. 29 (Sei 1994), pp. Simplified”, International Journal of Advanced Computer
Backlund, F., Chronéer, D. and Sundqvist, E. (2014), “Project
Applications, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 243-252. 3691–3697. Science and Applications, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 445-450.
management maturity models – a critical review: A case study
Görög, M. (2016), “A broader approach to organizational Liu, X., Xia, X. and Zhou, L. (2017), “OPM3-based internal Safaie, M. (2017), “Capability maturity model integration with
within Swedish engineering and construction organizations”,
project management maturity assessment”, International control of an accounting information system in cloud approach of agile Six Sigma”, International Journal of Agile
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. Vol.119 No. 0, pp. 837-846.
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1658-1669. computing”, Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech, Vol. 28 No 1, pp. Systems and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Bolat, B., Kuşdemir, A., Uslu, İ.C. and Temur, G.T. (2017),
Grant, K.P. and Pennypacker, J.S. (2006), “Project 2052-2056. Salman, R., Daim, T., Raffo, D. and Dabic, M. (2018),
“An Assessment for IT Project Maturity Levels”, International
Management Maturity: An Assessment of Project Management Mishra, A., Das, S.R. and Murray, J.J. (2016), “Risk, process “Exploring capability maturity models and relevant practices as
Journal of Information Technology Project Management, Vol. 8.
Capabilities Among and Between Selected Industries”, IEEE maturity, and project performance: An empirical analysis of US solutions addressing information technology service offshoring
No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. federal government technology projects”, Production and project issues”, International Journal of Management Science
Brookes, N. and Clark, R. (2009). Using maturity models to
59-68. Operations Management, Vol.25 No. 2, pp. 210-232. and Engineering Management, Vol. 13 No 3, pp. 147- 157.
improve project management practice. In proceedings of POMS
International Project Manager Association (2016), Morris, P. and Pinto, J. (2007), The Wiley Guide to Project, Seelhofer, D. and Graf, O.C. (2018), “National Project
20th Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A., 1.-4. 5. 2009
“Organizational Competence Baseline (OCB) for Developing Program and Portfolio Management, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Management Maturity: A Conceptual Framework”, Central
Brookes, N., Butler, M., Dey, P. and Clark, R. (2014), "The
Competences in Managing by Projects” available at: Mullaly M. (2014), "If maturity is the answer, then exactly what European Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
use of maturity models in improving project management
https://www.gpm- was the question?", International Journal of Managing Projects Selleri, S. F., Soares, F.S.F., Peres, A.L., Azevedo, I.M.D.,
performance: An empirical investigation", International Journal
ipma.de/fileadmin/user_upload/GPM/Qualifizierung_Zertifizierun in Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 169-185. Vasconcelos, A.P.L.F., Kamei, F.K. and Meira, S.R.D.L.
of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 231-246.
g/RO09_IPMA_OCB_V02.pdf (accessed 19 September 2020). Nenni, M. E., Arnone V., Boccardelli P. and Napolitano I., (2015), “Using CMMI together with agile software development:
Bushuyev, D.S. and Wagner, F.R. (2014), "IPMA Delta and
Jaleel, F., Daim T. and Giadedi, A. (2019),”Exploring the (2014), “How to Increase the Value of the Project Management A systematic review”, Information and Software Technology,
IPMA Organisational Competence Baseline (OCB)",
impact of knowledge management (KM) best practices for Maturity Model as a Business-Oriented Framework”, Vol.58, pp. 20-43.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7
project management maturity models on the project International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Shih, S.P., Shaw, R.S., Fu, T.Y. and Cheng, C.P. (2013), “A
No. 2, pp. 302-310.
management capability of organizations”, International Journal Vol. 6 No. 8, pp 1-7. Systematic Study of Change Management During CMMI
Chen, J.-J, Su, W.-C., Wang, P.-W and Yen, H.- C. (2013), "A
of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 14 Office of Government Commerce (2019), “PRINCE 2 Maturity Implementation: A Modified Activity Theory Perspective”,
CMMI-based approach for medical software project life cycle
No.1, pp. 47-52. Model”, Office of Government Commerce, available at: Project Management Journal, Vol. 44 No.4, pp. 84-100.
study", SpringerPlus, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Johnson, R.D., Adkins, J. and Pepper, D. (2018), "Project- http://www.uml.org.cn/xmgl/2011331_pdf (accessed 19 Silva, D., Tereso, A., Fernandes, G., and Pinto, J. Â,
CMMI Institute (2019), "What is CMMI? What is the CMMI
based organizational maturity in architecture, engineering, and September 2020). “OPM3® Portugal Project: Analysis of Preliminary Results,”
Model?", Help Center, 2019, available at: https://
construction: A theoretical premise for practical purposes", Pane, E. S. and Sarno, R. (2015), “Capability Maturity Model Procedia Technol., Vol. 16, pp. 1027–1036.
cmmiinstitute.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/216947067-What-
Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Integration (CMMI) for Optimizing Object- Oriented Analysis and Silvius, A. J. G. and Schipper, R. (2015), “Developing a
is-CMMI-What-is-the-CMMI-Model- (accessed 19 September
Management, pp. 55-77. Design (OOAD)”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 72, pp 40- maturity model for assessing sustainable project management”,
2020).
Jugdev, K. (2017), "Strengthening the connections between 48. Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Christoph A, J. and Spang, K. (2014), "Linking the benefits of
strategy and organizational project management", Cambridge Pasian, B. (2011), “Project management maturity: A critical Sokhanvar, S., Matthews, J., and Yarlagadda, P. K. D. V.
project management maturity to project complexity: Insights
Handbook of Organizational Project Management, pp. 44-54. analysis of existing and emergent contributing factors”, (2014), ”Management of project knowledge at various maturity
from a multiple case study", International Journal of Managing
Kerzner, H. (2005), Using the Project Management Maturity Dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney. levels in PMO, a theoretical framework”, paper presented at the
Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 285-301.
Model: strategic planning for project management, Hobokon- Pasian, B. (2014), “Extending the concept and modularization Project Management Institute Research and Education
Crawford, K. J. (2015), “Project Management Maturity Model”,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. of project management maturity with adaptable, human and Conference, Phoenix, AZ. Newtown Square, PA: Project
3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Khoshgoftar M. and Osman O. (2009), “Comparison of customer factors”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Management Institute.
De Fazio, E. (2017), “Why it is important to build an innovation
maturity models”, ICCSIT 2009, in 2nd IEEE International Business, Vol. 7 No.2, pp. 186-214. Souza, T.F. and Gomes, C.F.S. (2015), “Assessment of
strategy through the project management maturity model”, IEEE
Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology. Pasian, B., Sankaran, S. and Boydell, S. (2012), "Project maturity in project management: a bibliometric study of main
Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp.
Krishna, B., Srinath, A., Bhavani, N. and Sai, G. (2017), management maturity: a critical analysis of existing and models”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 55, pp. 92-101.
54-59.
“Analyzing software quality using CMMI-2 with agile- scrum emergent factors", International Journal of Managing Projects in Spalek, S. (2015), “Establishing a conceptual model for
Derenskaya, Y. (2017), “Organizational project management
framework”, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, Business, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 146- 157. assessing project management maturity in industrial
maturity”, Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Vol.3 No. 2, pp.
Vol 7. No 1.1, pp. 290-293. companies”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol.
25-32.
22 No 2, pp. 301-313.

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JANUARY/APRIL 2021

PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS... PAGE 45

Zurga, G. (2018), “Project management in public administration. TPM – Total project

management in maturity model. The case of Slovenian public administration”, Transylvanian
Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 53 E/2018 pp. 144-15.
Sreenivasan, S. and Kothandaraman, K. (2017), “Predictability with agility: Achieving
excellence in software delivery through SPEED” Global Business and Organizational Excellence,
Vol. 37 No 1, pp. 6- 15.
Tonchia, S. (2018), Industrial Project Management: International Standards and Best Practices,
Springer, Berlin.
Torrecilla-Salinas, C.J., De Troyer, O., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M. (2019), “A Delphi-based
expert judgment method applied to the validation of a mature Agile framework for Web
development projects”, Information Technology and Management, Vol 20 No. 1, pp. 9-40.
Torrecilla-Salinas, C.J., Sedeño, J., Escalona, M.J. and Mejías, M. (2016), “Agile, Web
Engineering and Capability Maturity Model Integration: A systematic literature review”,
Information and Software Technology, Vol. 71 No.1, pp. 92-107.
Vince R. S., Srinath, M.V. and Shareef, P.M. (2015), “Understanding the conceptual value in
adopting CMMI process maturity framework”, International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research, Vol. 10, No.12, pp. 30345-30352.

PROJECT
Young, M., Young, R. and Romero Zapata, J. (2014), “Project, programme and portfolio
maturity: a case study of Australian Federal Government”, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 215-230.

About Authors MANAGEMENT

MATURITY MODELS
Elisa Fabbro is currently a project manager Stefano Tonchia, managerial engineer, LITERATURE REVIEW AND NEW
for various international health-related
scientific projects. She graduated with a
degree in Medical Biotechnology and
Ph.D. in Innovation Science, is Full
Professor of Project Management at the
University of Udine, Italy. Former the
DEVELOPMENTS
completed her Ph.D. at the University of Dean of Project Management School of
Trieste (Italy), with additional qualifications Alenia Aeronautica, the Italian
of Specialization in "Project Management" Aeronautics Company, and Honorary
and International Master in "Quality Squadron Commander of US Air Force
Management of the European Healthcare for merits in Project Management, he
Systems" from the University of Udine has written many articles on international
(Italy). journals and published several
international books on Lean, Process
and Project Management. His latest
book is "Industrial Project Management -
International Standards and Best
Practices for Engineering and
Construction Contracting" by Springer
(new edition, 2018). He works jointly with
major international institutions and
leading companies.

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JANUARY/APRIL 2021